LAWS(APH)-1973-10-15

SHAMAMMA Vs. RAMACHANDER RAO

Decided On October 12, 1973
SHAMAMMA Appellant
V/S
RAMACHANDER RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has been referred by the Division Bench for decision by this Full Bench is "Whether in the face of sub-sec(4) of Section 3 of the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act(Act No. V of 1349 Fasli) and Rule 16 of the rules framed under the said Act, the renewal of a licence subsequent to the date of expiry of the licence, on an application made prior to the date of expiry dates back to the date of the application, so as to say that the renewal is only a continuation of the licence already granted to the money lender"?

(2.) It is necessary to state a few facts to appreciate the point that arises in this case. The respondents herein filed the suit O. S. 14 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsiffs Court, Narayanpet, on 20-9-1968 for recovery of Rs. 2,000.00 on the basis of a promissory note executed by the deceased Ushanna in favour of the plaintiff on 1-9-1965. The defendants are the legal representatives of the maker of the promissory note. Besides various pleas taken up by them in the suit they also pleaded that the plaintiff was a money lender coming under the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act, that inasmuch as he had no licence on the date of the promissory note the suit has to be dismissed.

(3.) The trial court held that the plaintiff was not having a valid licence under the provisions of the Money Lenders Act, that he was therefore prohibited from advancing any money, that the transaction is not valid transaction and that the suit has therefore to be dismissed. It also found that the suit as against defendants 3 to 6 was barred by limitation. Plaintiff, thereupon preferred the appeal A.S. 92 of 1970 on the file of the District Court, Mahboobnagar. In the appeal the plaintiff filed I. A. 323 of 1970 under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. to receive as additional evidence two documents filed along with it. They were certified copies of the application submitted by the plaintiff to the Tahsil Office, Makthal, for registration and grant of money lending licence , on 31-12-1964. It is stated therein that a sum of Rs. 21-44 np. was credited to the Sub-Treasury Office , Makthal and challan No. 167 was enclosed thereto. The other document was the original of the challan evidencing payment into treasury of Rs. 21-44 np. on 2-1-1965 as money lending licence fee for the year 1965. It was also argued for the appellant that the plaintiff as P.W. 1 deposed in the suit that he has started money lending business since 1354 F(1944) and that he has been obtaining licence year after year, that Ex. A-5 filed in the suit was a renewed licence granted on 30-3-1966, on an application filed even before the previous year has expired , after complying with all the formalities, that it was valid upto 31-12-1965, that the provisions of sub-section(5) of Section 3 of the Act were not violated and as such the suit could not be dismissed. The learned appellate Judge considered the arguments as well as the additional documents and the relevant case law and came to the conclusion that the two documents had to be admitted and that they would show that the renewed licence dates back to the date of application and the trial Court was not justified without further investigations in non-suiting the plaintiff had no valid licence on the date of the suit transaction notwithstanding the production of Ex. A-5 and the evidence of the plaintiff. In that view the appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded for fresh disposal after setting at large all the findings of the trial Court and giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence as they deem fit to adduce.